You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum. This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.

Jake Ryan is worst an average ILB and by most accounts a good ILB. Like it or not IMO he is here to stay for at least ten years in a Packers uniform.

Ryan is average. That being said, I dont mind Ryan I just think we should compliment him with a faster player next to him. I don't think Martinez is that guy. Id like to see a player like a Foster, Davis, Deion Jones, etc next to Ryan and I think we'd be that much better at the position.

Firstly, no one is contending All-Pros are needed at every position. That is a lazy assertion to deflect from the arguments being made.

You say I deflect, and ignore your point yet you do the exact same thing. What exactly is worthy of being invested into that position? As we've discussed almost ad nauseam, we've almost never been in a position to invest a pick into an ILB where the value met the need. And even less times where we had a player with a similar (or potentially greater) grade at a bigger priority position. We've discussed this time and time again. But let's go back to this, what exactly is the difference between investing a 3rd round pick in an ILB and investing a 4th round pick? Why is not acceptable to use a 4th round pick on ILB, but it's acceptable to use a 3rd round pick? You're choosing some arbitrary cutoff to make your point. Secondly, what was wrong with Jake Ryan and Blake Martinez (pre-injury) early in the year? Sure, it might not be ideal but it was hardly a major liability and seemed to work reasonably well together. Unfortunately, Martinez got hurt and seemed to have hit the rookie wall and Jake Ryan played reasonably well in the second half of the season. Do I think Martinez or Ryan are elite? Hell no. Do I think they can be great? Probably not. But do I think they're capable of doing their job? Absolutely. But if you want to continue bang the drum that the Packers need to invest more into their ILBs, go right ahead. I'll take players that are going to have a bigger impact and pay them more money and spend more premium picks on those positions.

TheOnlyThing wrote:

Secondly, I clearly wrote in my earlier post that, regarding the ILB position, "collectively this again projects to be a below average group, which might be OK if it was the only weak link on the D but it isn't."

You've been banging this drum since the second you started posting, it didn't just magically start because we had issues in the secondary. If our secondary was healthy and productive, you'd still be finding reasons to complain. Our ILB weren't the issue last year, our secondary was. And TT went out and addressed that and now you're complaining that he hasn't done enough to fill the issue at ILB that you have. So again I'll ask, what position do you feel needed to be addressed more this offseason, cornerback or inside linebacker? The answer should be without a doubt corner.

TheOnlyThing wrote:

Third, the problems with the argument that the Pack will be just fine on D in 2017 because they are saving $ at ILBer and thus are able to pour more resources into premium positions like OLB & CB are that (1) while GB is heavily invested at OLB it is highly unlikely to reap a commensurate reward from that investment (especially from Clay), and (2) GB is NOT heavily invested (at least not financially) at CB and the group remains, on paper, underwhelming.

I never said they'd be just fine, or even "Super Bowl caliber" level. But again, as we've discussed before how many times have teams sported both a top-10 offense and a top-10 defense? It doesn't happen. Every team has holes, the Packers are no different. The question is are the Packers' issues fatal? And if you want to say yes, I probably wouldn't fight you too hard on it. Especially given the unknown with our cornerbacks._________________

Firstly, no one is contending All-Pros are needed at every position. That is a lazy assertion to deflect from the arguments being made.

You say I deflect, and ignore your point yet you do the exact same thing. What exactly is worthy of being invested into that position? As we've discussed almost ad nauseam, we've almost never been in a position to invest a pick into an ILB where the value met the need. And even less times where we had a player with a similar (or potentially greater) grade at a bigger priority position. We've discussed this time and time again. But let's go back to this, what exactly is the difference between investing a 3rd round pick in an ILB and investing a 4th round pick? Why is not acceptable to use a 4th round pick on ILB, but it's acceptable to use a 3rd round pick? You're choosing some arbitrary cutoff to make your point. Secondly, what was wrong with Jake Ryan and Blake Martinez (pre-injury) early in the year? Sure, it might not be ideal but it was hardly a major liability and seemed to work reasonably well together. Unfortunately, Martinez got hurt and seemed to have hit the rookie wall and Jake Ryan played reasonably well in the second half of the season. Do I think Martinez or Ryan are elite? Hell no. Do I think they can be great? Probably not. But do I think they're capable of doing their job? Absolutely. But if you want to continue bang the drum that the Packers need to invest more into their ILBs, go right ahead. I'll take players that are going to have a bigger impact and pay them more money and spend more premium picks on those positions.

TheOnlyThing wrote:

Secondly, I clearly wrote in my earlier post that, regarding the ILB position, "collectively this again projects to be a below average group, which might be OK if it was the only weak link on the D but it isn't."

You've been banging this drum since the second you started posting, it didn't just magically start because we had issues in the secondary. If our secondary was healthy and productive, you'd still be finding reasons to complain. Our ILB weren't the issue last year, our secondary was. And TT went out and addressed that and now you're complaining that he hasn't done enough to fill the issue at ILB that you have. So again I'll ask, what position do you feel needed to be addressed more this offseason, cornerback or inside linebacker? The answer should be without a doubt corner.

TheOnlyThing wrote:

Third, the problems with the argument that the Pack will be just fine on D in 2017 because they are saving $ at ILBer and thus are able to pour more resources into premium positions like OLB & CB are that (1) while GB is heavily invested at OLB it is highly unlikely to reap a commensurate reward from that investment (especially from Clay), and (2) GB is NOT heavily invested (at least not financially) at CB and the group remains, on paper, underwhelming.

I never said they'd be just fine, or even "Super Bowl caliber" level. But again, as we've discussed before how many times have teams sported both a top-10 offense and a top-10 defense? It doesn't happen. Every team has holes, the Packers are no different. The question is are the Packers' issues fatal? And if you want to say yes, I probably wouldn't fight you too hard on it. Especially given the unknown with our cornerbacks.

Ehhh...not so fast there. CB was a fine selection, but it really depends on how you view the ILB position. If you just want to be average at ILB and you want to be really good at CB, then CB is probably the bigger need. If you want to be really good at ILB and average at CB then ILB is by far the bigger need. We've answered our ILB position with two Day 3 picks and have very little depth there, so there is some need there. On the other hand, we used a 1st Rounder on Randall, a 2nd Rounder on Rollins, and we brought in the veteran House. Then we have guys like the experienced UDFA in Gunter and inexperienced but athletic UDFA Hawkins as depth. It could easily be argued ILB was a bigger need than CB if you believe that getting these CB's healthy and continuing to develop them as well as the addition of House answers are problems (and CB's can be found late in the Draft, too).

In the end, it really comes down to how the Packers want to build the team IMO. This Defense already takes a lot of talent to work, but one of the places that it tries to save money at (because you can't pay every position) is ILB.

I have to say that I don't buy this argument that ILB hasn't fit good value in the last however many drafts. If we are constantly missing out on the ILB's then that's a sign we are undervaluing their actual worth, and saying that we value doesn't match the pick becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think it's really hard to make the argument that the Packers didn't have the opportunity to take an ILB in 2015. When we took Randall at #29, Stephone Anthony went one pick after us at #30. There were other ILB's as well such as Bernardrick McKinney (#43), Eric Kendricks (#45), and Denzel Perryman (#48). So Anthony would've been good value, if we didn't want to take one of these other 3 where we were, we could've traded down and got our pick of the litter (I liked Kendricks), or we could've traded up as TT has done multiple times in the 2nd and taken one. The possibility of trading really destroys the value argument as well. But even then, we took Ty Montgomery in the 3rd (#90) and could've had Paul Dawson who went #99, which would've been good value. And obviously in this year, we could've had Reuben Foster, which would've been good value, given he went right after us. Last year we could've had Myles Jack given he went 9 picks after us. There have been all kinds of opportunities for us to take an ILB in the first 3 rounds, but it's quite clear that the Packers just don't value the position much because they want to save money there._________________

Ehhh...not so fast there. CB was a fine selection, but it really depends on how you view the ILB position. If you just want to be average at ILB and you want to be really good at CB, then CB is probably the bigger need. If you want to be really good at ILB and average at CB then ILB is by far the bigger need. We've answered our ILB position with two Day 3 picks and have very little depth there, so there is some need there. On the other hand, we used a 1st Rounder on Randall, a 2nd Rounder on Rollins, and we brought in the veteran House. Then we have guys like the experienced UDFA in Gunter and inexperienced but athletic UDFA Hawkins as depth. It could easily be argued ILB was a bigger need than CB if you believe that getting these CB's healthy and continuing to develop them as well as the addition of House answers are problems (and CB's can be found late in the Draft, too).

In the end, it really comes down to how the Packers want to build the team IMO. This Defense already takes a lot of talent to work, but one of the places that it tries to save money at (because you can't pay every position) is ILB.

I have to say that I don't buy this argument that ILB hasn't fit good value in the last however many drafts. If we are constantly missing out on the ILB's then that's a sign we are undervaluing their actual worth, and saying that we value doesn't match the pick becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think it's really hard to make the argument that the Packers didn't have the opportunity to take an ILB in 2015. When we took Randall at #29, Stephone Anthony went one pick after us at #30. There were other ILB's as well such as Bernardrick McKinney (#43), Eric Kendricks (#45), and Denzel Perryman (#4. So Anthony would've been good value, if we didn't want to take one of these other 3 where we were, we could've traded down and got our pick of the litter (I liked Kendricks), or we could've traded up as TT has done multiple times in the 2nd and taken one. The possibility of trading really destroys the value argument as well. But even then, we took Ty Montgomery in the 3rd (#90) and could've had Paul Dawson who went #99, which would've been good value. And obviously in this year, we could've had Reuben Foster, which would've been good value, given he went right after us. Last year we could've had Myles Jack given he went 9 picks after us. There have been all kinds of opportunities for us to take an ILB in the first 3 rounds, but it's quite clear that the Packers just don't value the position much because they want to save money there.

First off, CB is a MUCH more important position than ILB. Hands down, no debate. so when you say:

Quote:

If you just want to be average at ILB and you want to be really good at CB, then CB is probably the bigger need. If you want to be really good at ILB and average at CB then ILB is by far the bigger need.

If you have to choose, the answer is be really good at CB, every single time.

Also, House was brought in on a 1 year deal. He's a speed bump this year so the young guys can stabilize and take over, so the addition of House isn't something that would impact the draft much if at all.

And value hasn't met need at ILB even in your example. I think both Randall and Montgomery were the right picks in those scenarios. None of those LBs were as good value as the people taken in front of him. Myles Jack was likely off the board completely due to injry, and McKinney, Kendricks and Perryman aren't fundamentally much better than Ryan and Martinez IMO.

The only ILB that might be worth it are the ones with coverage skills. Those tend to go higher than I'd be comfortable taking them but that's the only kind worth worrying about investing in. Someone with speed. Dieon Jones and Su'a Cravens were intriguing last year but I can't argue with trading up for Spriggs at that spot either.

Value hasn't met need at ILB because it's not that important a position unless you find someone with a somewhat special skill set. I'd rather guys like Martinez and Ryan in the 4th than spend firsts and seconds on guys like Reggie Ragland and Ruben Foster._________________

Wilfred wrote:

Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.

I never said they'd be just fine, or even "Super Bowl caliber" level. But again, as we've discussed before how many times have teams sported both a top-10 offense and a top-10 defense? It doesn't happen. Every team has holes, the Packers are no different. The question is are the Packers' issues fatal? And if you want to say yes, I probably wouldn't fight you too hard on it. Especially given the unknown with our cornerbacks.

Contrary to the representation above, and as has repeatedly been pointed out, the undisputed facts show that finishing in the top-10 on offense and defense DOES HAPPEN.

In fact, 3 of the last 4 SB winners finished in the top 10 in both offense & defense:

And in 2015, the SB loser Carolina finished 1st in offensive points and 6th on defense.

The record further shows that the last time the Packers finished in the top 10 in both offense and defense was 2010. That was also the last time the team made the Super Bowl. (In 2014, when the team came oh-so-close to making the SB and was remarkably injury free, the D tied for 13th in points allowed).

Of course, the fundamental issue is not whether this defense can finish in the top 10, but rather whether it is requisite to allow the Pack to return to the Super Bowl in 2017.

Given your statement that, despite the personnel improvements that have been made, you would not fight the conclusion that the D's "issues" are "fatal," you apparently conclude that this D as presently constructed is unlikely to allow the Pack to get to next year's SB in "the People's Stadium."

I agree with this conclusion and that is why I still believe the D, after so many failures over the past 6 seasons despite all the resources that have been devoted to it, needs to be fundamentally transformed.